Preface/disclaimer: I don't care about this at all. Who goes on our money is utterly meaningless. I mean, it has an impact on pop culture a bit. Nobody is ever going to say "Show me them Tubmans!" But, in terms of practical significance? Nil. It's political theater. That said, putting Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill is a terrible decision and everybody should question such a move.
Why is Harriet Tubman going on the $20 bill?
Nobody can give you a decent answer. You'll get "Because she's black," or "We need more women," or "It's current year," but nothing that substantially addresses the comprehensive relevance in relation to the entire nature of the choosing who goes on our currency.
Before going forward, it is necessary to distinguish the differences between paper currency and coins. It is generally understood that coins are not a serious form of currency. They can be radically altered and rebranded on a whim, and the average person will barely notice. Get a handful of pennies from a US store, and it's not uncommon that you'll find a Canadian penny in there- and Canada doesn't even have pennies anymore. There are well over a hundred different quarter designs since 2000, to the point that nobody knows what an official quarter is supposed to look like. You could probably pass around counterfeit quarters with batman logos on the back, and nobody would ever notice. However, starting back in 1862, US paper currency developed and nurtured a set of patterns and standards that have existed fairly unaltered to this very day. This recently announced wave of revisions to currency represents a fundamental paradigm shift in the meaning of our reserve notes.
So, what do the faces on our money represent?
The answer to this question is actually staggeringly simple. Though there were some early birthing stumbles- Pocahontas on the $20 in the early years of the "demand note"- the people on US money represent people who have had a powerful impact on US economic policy. The presence on a bill represents nothing more or less than a recognition that, yes, this person had something to do with money.
People have claimed that the history of paper currency in the US is marked by "Dead Presidents". While this has been true to a rather limited degree, it is ultimately inaccurate. Of the modern bills, Alexander Hamilton of the $10 bill and Benjamin Franklin of the $100 bill were never presidents of the United States. Historically, there have also been many, many other non-presidents to grace the surface of bills. Each and every person on a bill was somebody who fundamentally changed how money works in this country. George Washington's influence is so obvious that it's not necessary to state it. Abraham Lincoln maintained the Union, and was also the president who instituted our official paper currency in the first place. Salmon P. Chase was an influential Treasury Secretary. Ulysses S. Grant was the president who oversaw the development of the modern US currency systems started with Lincoln. Grover Cleveland's entire political legacy is defined by his commitment to economic reforms. There are no arbitrary placements on our bills.
So, what's different now?
This entire wave of denomination change represents a wider-sweeping effort to launch a cultural battle to control every facet of American ideology and culture. The "United" in United States has traditionally stood for the idea of disparate cultures and systems working together, despite their ideological differences, to produce greater economic stability. Many see that as not enough, and have decided that political correctness should supersede market forces. The "United" should be a union of virtue signaling, where representation should not be based on merit or logic, but instead on a sort of bland popularity contest designed to pick the least "offensive" answer possible.
Nowhere has this been more obvious than with the announcement that Alexander Hamilton will not be removed from the $10 bill, despite initial plans to include the bill in the wave of redesigns. What's the reason for backing out on that change? The popularity of the rapping Broadway musical "Hamilton". Despite being the first Secretary to the Treasury of the United States, despite writing the majority of the Federalist papers, despite founding the seeds of the entire federal reserve, Hamilton's presence on our paper currency was only spared because rich people liked it when a funny Hispanic man pretending to be Hamilton appropriated black culture to sing about Aaron Burr. With the indignity of such a saving grace, it would almost be preferable to be removed from the $10 bill.
So, what about Andrew Jackson?
Andrew Jackson's inclusion on the $20 bill is a hilarious bit of irony. While it is undeniable that Jackson has a tremendous influence on the development of US economic policy, it is also equally undeniable that the man would have loathed the idea of being featured on a piece of fiat currency. As a fan of decentralized government, Jackson contributed a significant amount of effort towards destroying the national bank that was set up by Hamilton. Jackson feared and loathed the idea that the government could be allowed to control or influence the national economy through their legal tender. Putting Jackson's face on the official currency of the federal reserve is not an honor, but an unambiguous slap in the face, a fact widely understood by all historians and economists. He would likely consider it an honor to be removed from the bill, especially considering its new status as a modern-day American Idol competition.
So, why Harriet Tubman?
Because she's black, and she's a woman. That's really all there is to it. It's pure political correctness. An arbitrary figure picked out of a box by bureaucrats to satisfy an arbitrary acceptability checklist.
Now, don't get me wrong. She's a phenomenal figure in US history. What she accomplished and what she represents cannot be understated. But, one thing she absolutely doesn't represent is anything related to the US economy. She was an outlaw and a thief. Her primary occupation was stealing property and smuggling it across state lines. A noble endeavor. The world needs more Robin Hoods, and she was the best kind. But, Robin Hoods don't have anything to do with the establishment. King George didn't put Hood on the sovereign, and the US government shouldn't be putting Tubman on the $20. It's an insult to everything she stood for. It may seem a kind gesture, but it's hardly any less mocking to her than the person she replaced.
Who should be there?
If one was dead-set on having a woman on the $20 bill, there are a handful of immediately obvious and superior answers. Edith Abbot was responsible for the drafting of the Social Securities Act, a topic that has come to redefine the US economic landscape. Or, we could go with her boss, Frances Perkins, the longest-serving Labor Secretary in US history. If you want to go non-governmental figures, there are also plenty of other options like Anna Schwartz, the co-author of "A Monetary History of the United States". The options go on and on.
Of course, easily the best answer, and actually a runner-up who was ultimately excluded for not being black enough, was Eleanor Roosevelt. Generally accepted as the first female president of the United States, Roosevelt is considered the chief architect of massive social reforms and expanding of governmental oversight. Eleanor Roosevelt was everything we could want in an appropriate face for the $20 bill, but we would rather judge her on the color of her skin than the content of her character.
